Welcome to Medical News Today

Healthline Media, Inc. would like to process and share personal data (e.g., mobile ad id) and data about your use of our site (e.g., content interests) with our third party partners (see a current list) using cookies and similar automatic collection tools in order to a) personalize content and/or offers on our site or other sites, b) communicate with you upon request, and/or c) for additional reasons upon notice and, when applicable, with your consent.

Healthline Media, Inc. is based in and operates this site from the United States. Any data you provide will be primarily stored and processed in the United States, pursuant to the laws of the United States, which may provide lesser privacy protections than European Economic Area countries.

By clicking “accept” below, you acknowledge and grant your consent for these activities unless and until you withdraw your consent using our rights request form. Learn more in our Privacy Policy.

Please accept our privacy terms

We use cookies and similar technologies to improve your browsing experience, personalize content and offers, show targeted ads, analyze traffic, and better understand you. We may share your information with third-party partners for marketing purposes. To learn more and make choices about data use, visit our Advertising Policy and Privacy Policy. By clicking “Accept and Continue” below, (1) you consent to these activities unless and until you withdraw your consent using our rights request form, and (2) you consent to allow your data to be transferred, processed, and stored in the United States.

Get the MNT newsletter

Email an article

You have chosen to share the following article:

How elderberries can help you fight the flu

To proceed, simply complete the form below, and a link to the article will be sent by email on your behalf.Note: Please don't include any URLs in your comments, as they will be removed upon submission.

We do not store details you enter into this form. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

Message sent successfully

WHO Admits: There Is No Evidence For Recommending A 10-15% Caesarean Limit

Published
Thursday 29 October 2009 Published Thu 29 Oct 2009

Adapted Media Release

This press release was retracted in error and we apologize for any inconvenience.

The World Health Organization has finally updated its 1985 recommendation on caesarean rates,
admitting that "no empirical evidence for an optimum percentage" exists, an "optimum rate is unknown,"
and world regions may now "set their own standards."

In its latest 2009 publication, 'Monitoring Emergency Obstetric Care: a handbook',(1) the WHO states that,
'Both very low and very high rates of caesarean section can be dangerous, but the optimum rate is unknown.
Pending further research, users of this handbook might want to continue to use a range of 5-15% or set their
own standards.'

The statement continues, 'Earlier editions of this handbook set a minimum (5%) and a maximum (15%)
acceptable level for caesarean section. Although WHO has recommended since 1985 that the rate not
exceed 10-15%, there is no empirical evidence for an optimum percentage or range of percentages, despite
a growing body of research that shows a negative effect of high rates.'*

In October 2008, the Coalition for Childbirth Autonomy (CCA) called on the WHO to re-examine what it
described as an 'outdated and unsafe'(2) recommended 10-15% caesarean threshold, claiming that efforts to
keep within that range 'could lead to increased morbidity for both mothers and infants.' The CCA cited a
number of medical studies in support of its argument, and included sixteen examples of medical
publications and cited opinion(3) that criticised the 1985 recommendation. The group maintained that 'the
provision of truly unbiased information for women, with full disclosure of risks and benefits associated
with all birth types, and crucially, respect for women's individual decisions was more important than any
'national efforts to reduce the incidence of one particular birth type.' They emphasised the importance of a
mother's perception of her birth as being significant in her recovery, and that this ought to inform the
decision-making process on birth mode.

Background information

Back in 1985, the World Health Organization recommended that there was no justification for a caesarean
delivery rate higher than 10-15% in any world region. Since then, for 2009, the WHO has updated its
24-year-old recommendation, admitting that 'no empirical evidence for an optimum percentage' exists and
an 'optimum rate is unknown'. It now recommends instead that world regions make a choice. They 'might
want to continue to use a range of 5-15% or set their own standards.'

Almost a quarter of a century has passed since the WHO document 'Appropriate Technology For Birth'(4)
was published, yet advocates of natural birth, members of the news media and government policies have
continued to quote the figure 15% as an authoritative recommended caesarean rate threshold, and evidence
of caesarean overuse. Worse still, this percentage range has been used to criticise rising national caesarean
rates and encourage efforts to reduce the number of surgeries arbitrarily.

Nevertheless, caesarean rates in most of the developed world have long since risen above the 10-15% rate
range suggested in 1985, with no concomitant rise in maternal mortality or foetal, perinatal and neonatal
mortality. The removal of this arbitrary number at last leads us away from the idea that a target can be
applied across the worldwide maternal population.

Ambiguity

Unfortunately, there remains a degree of ambiguity in what the WHO now recommends. It suggests that
regions 'use a range of 10-15%' (even though there is no empirical evidence for such a range) or implement
their own standards. Consequently, it is perhaps inevitable that different birth advocate groups will take
opposing views on what the new handbook statement actually means, and arguments over the credibility of
an optimum caesarean rate (emergency and/or elective) will continue.

The CCA's view

As a group, the CCA have close contact with significant numbers of women for whom a planned caesarean
would be their preferred birth choice. Some of these women exhibit a justifiable fear of childbirth
(tokophobia), prior birth trauma or physical or sexual abuse, which causes them to fear vaginal delivery and
in some cases can lead to abortion and the decision not to have children.

For these women the ability to make an informed choice for a planned caesarean would remove significant
worry about the birth of their baby and reduce the likelihood of emotional trauma following their birth.
Equally, there are women whose decision to plan a caesarean is based on an informed appraisal of the risks
and benefits of planned surgery versus a trial of labour.

The risks associated with vaginal deliveries include genital tract trauma, subsequent reconstructive surgery
and pelvic floor disorders.(5) Many women are more tolerant of caesarean risks and more comfortable with
this birth experience. Yet for all of these women, this choice is not available.

Clearly, the WHO has now shifted its focus on caesarean sections away from regional limits and towards
safe birth outcomes. 'Ultimately, what matters most is that all women who need caesarean sections actually
receive them.' The CCA believe that their definition of 'need' should include those informed women who
perceive the trauma of vaginal birth to be significantly greater than that of caesarean birth. This is not yet
recognised by many practitioners. In fact in practice, many women are not given balanced information
about childbirth; the benefits of planned vaginal delivery are often emphasised and the risks associated with
planned caesarean delivery exaggerated.

*The CCA disputes the relevance of the 'growing body of research' referred to here. In short, the WHO
cites three references that include mixed data; for example, emergency caesarean health outcomes are
applied to planned caesarean data instead of the 'planned' vaginal delivery where they originated.

2019 Healthline Media UK Ltd. All rights reserved. MNT is the registered trade mark of Healthline Media. Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a healthcare professional.